Alabama Adopts First Official State Ban on UN Agenda 21

Alabama became the first state to adopt a tough law protecting private property and due process by prohibiting any government involvement with or participation in a controversial United Nations scheme known as Agenda 21. Activists from across the political spectrum celebrated the measure’s approval as a significant victory against the UN “sustainability” plot, expressing hope that similar sovereignty-preserving measures would be adopted in other states as the nationwide battle heats up.

The Alabama Senate Bill (SB) 477 legislation, known unofficially among some supporters as the “Due Process for Property Rights” Act, was approved unanimously by both the state House and Senate. After hesitating for a few days, late last month Republican Governor Robert Bentley finally signed into law the wildly popular measure — but only after heavy pressure from activists forced his hand.

Virtually no mention of the law was made in the establishment press. But analysts said the measure was likely the strongest protection against the UN scheme passed anywhere in America so far. The law, aimed at protecting private property rights, specifically prevents all state agencies and local governments in Alabama from participating in the global scheme in any way.

“The State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not adopt or implement policy recommendations that deliberately or inadvertently infringe or restrict private property rights without due process, as may be required by policy recommendations originating in, or traceable to ‘Agenda 21,’ ” the law states, adding a brief background on the UN plan hatched at the 1992 “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro.

The people of Alabama acting through their elected representatives — not UN bureaucrats — have the authority to develop the state’s environmental and development policies, the official synopsis of the law explains. Therefore, infringements on the property rights of citizens linked to “any other international law or ancillary plan of action that contravenes the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Alabama” are also prohibited under the new measure.

Of course, as the law points out, the UN has enlisted a broad array of non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations in its effort to foist Agenda 21 on the world — most notably a Germany-based group called ICLEI, formerly known as the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives. But the new measure takes direct aim at that problem, too: “the State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not enter into any agreement, expend any sum of money, or receive funds contracting services, or giving financial aid to or from” any such entities, as defined in Agenda 21 documents.

“This bill, that would bar the state from taking over private property without due process, is intended to shelter Alabamians from the United Nations Agenda 21, a sustainable development initiative that some conservatives see as a precursor for the creation of a world government,” explained Alabama GOP Executive Director T.J. Maloney when announcing that it had been signed into law. The Republican National Committee (RNC) adopted a resolution earlier this year blasting the global scheme and urging policy makers to oppose it, and state parties have followed suit.

Public support for the Alabama law was overwhelming and bipartisan as citizens who had been terrorized by Agenda 21-linked schemes targeting their private property spoke out. But according to analysts and state Republican Party officials cited in press reports, Gov. Bentley was originally hesitant to sign the bill — almost certainly due to concerns over the potential loss of some federal funding.

The U.S. Senate, of course, has never formally ratified Agenda 21. But the executive branch — in conjunction with accomplices at the international, state, and local levels — has for two decades been quietly attempting to impose the plan on Americans by stealth, mostly using deceptive terms like “Smart Growth” and “Green.” And proponents of the global scheme consistently threaten that states seeking to protect citizens from the UN plot could end up losing some federal funds.

“Every time you take a dollar of federal money, there’s strings attached,” explained Ken Freeman, chairman of the Alabama-based group Alliance for Citizens Rights (ACR), an organization that fought hard to ensure that the Governor signed the bill into law. “We were originally walking soft on this issue, to tell you the truth, because when things were going our way, why change anything?”

But when Gov. Bentley did not immediately approve the bill, Freeman told a reporter, ACR turned the activism up a notch, urging citizens to contact the Governor’s office and express their support for the measure. The grassroots pressure paid off: Alabama became the first state to be officially shielded by law from UN-linked anti-property rights scheming.

“It seems that Agenda 21 does actually bring people together in communities — just not in the way the U.N. had hoped for,” remarked Justice Gilpin-Green in a column for the conservative site Townhall, citing Freeman and other instrumental supporters of the effort. “Hopefully other states can mirror Alabama’s determined nature in passing their anti-Agenda 21 legislation. It was citizen awareness and direct action that finally brought about the needed changes last week and that same awareness and action will be needed for the future of every other state.”

Legislative analysts said the bill, sponsored by GOP state Sen. Gerald Dial, was extremely well crafted: protecting citizens and individual rights from UN decrees in a simple, straightforward manner that Agenda 21 advocates would have a hard time criticizing. Liberty-minded organizations and lawmakers are already examining the measure for potential use as a model in other states currently struggling to expel the global scheme and its myriad tentacles.

“Alabama House Bill 618 [SB 477] is a large step towards protecting Alabamians against UN meddling. It protects the due process rights of Alabamians. It keeps Constitutional Law above International Law,” noted Jason Baker, a Montgomery-based conservative pundit with the Examiner. “Now state after state awakens to the threat it poses to freedom and sovereignty.”

Across America, Tea Party groups, liberty-minded Democrats, libertarians, and a broad coalition of activists have been turning up the heat on Agenda 21. Tennessee, for example, adopted a bipartisan state resolution slamming the UN scheme as an “insidious” and “socialist” plot that is completely at odds with American traditions of limited government, individual freedom, private property, and self-governance under the Constitution. Numerous other states are pursuing similar measures.

A bill similar to Alabama’s seeking a complete ban on Agenda 21 and unconstitutional UN “sustainability” efforts in Arizona was approved overwhelmingly in the state Senate. The legislation died in the state House even after clearing several hurdles, however, when the legislative session ended before a final vote could be taken. New Hampshire is reportedly working on a bill to ban Agenda 21 that sailed through the state House last month.

Meanwhile, local governments across America — under intense pressure from citizens and activist groups — are slowly awakening to what critics call the “dangers” of the UN scheme. Dozens of cities and counties have withdrawn from ICLEI in recent years, and as awareness continues to grow, that trend is expected to accelerate.

The UN, however, is doubling down on its controversial plan. In June, governments from all over the world will be meeting in Rio de Janeiro for the so-called “Conference on Sustainable Development” — known as Rio+20 for short. According to official documents released by the global body, the summit, headed by Chinese Communist Sha Zukang, will be seeking to dramatically transform human civilization under the guise of environmentalism.

Production, education, consumption, individual rights, and even people’s thoughts will all be targeted under the global plan to create a so-called “green economy,” the UN admitted. But with the tidal wave of opposition in America growing stronger every single day, analysts expect fierce U.S. opposition — if not from the Obama administration, at least from the increasingly outraged citizenry.

The establishment of Clinton’s President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) started a pattern of denial by federal government agencies regarding any connection with the UN’s Agenda 21. Even though the PCSD was clearly established in 1993 in support of the UN’s Agenda 21 and its Sustainable Development proposals from the UN’s ’92 Earth Summit in Rio, the PCSD’s statements and documents never referred to the UN and Agenda 21.

“Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy-fixated groups and individuals in our society…. This segment of our society who fear ‘one-world government’ and a UN invasion of the United States through which our individual freedom would be stripped away would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined ‘the conspiracy’ by undertaking LA21 [Local Agenda 21]. So, we call our processes something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth.”

This helps explain why virtually all federal activities in pursuit of sustainability rarely make any reference to the UN or the UN’s Agenda 21, even though these federal activities are very much in sync with the UN’s Agenda 21.

Nonetheless, there have been very significant developments regarding sustainability at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) beginning with its 40th anniversary in late 2010. On November 30, 2010, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson stated: “Today I am formally requesting President Cicerone and the National Academies convene a committee of experts to provide to the U.S. EPA an operational framework for sustainability that applies across all of the agency’s programs, policies, and actions.”

Jackson added: “Today we have a new opportunity in front of us. We have an opportunity to focus on how environmentally protective and sustainable we can be. You see, it’s the difference between treating disease and pursuing wellness.”

The National Academies of Science (NAS) responded with a detailed study, Sustainability and the U.S. EPA (aka the “Green Book”), which cost the EPA $700,000, and which was published in August 2011. The NAS also produced a 5-minute video (see graphic above) about this project.
Here are some excerpts from the 286-page “Green Book”:

“The [UN’s World Commission on Environment and Development] called upon the UN General Assembly to transform its [1987] report into a global action plan for sustainable development. The nations of the world did precisely that at the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development, or “Earth Summit,” in Rio de Janeiro. These nations, including the United States, endorsed a global sustainable development action plan, known as Agenda 21, and a set of 27 principles for sustainable-development, called the Rio Declaration. Together, these agreements modify the definition of development by adding a third pillar — environmental protection and restoration — to the economic and social pillars of development….”

“First, the committee recommends that EPA formally adopt as its sustainability paradigm the ‘Three Pillars’ approach of ‘Social,’ ‘Environment,’ and ‘Economic’ dimensions of sustainability….”

“Sustainability impact assessment is used to analyze the probable effects of a particular project or proposal on the social, environmental, and economic pillars of sustainability.”

Thus, the “Green Book” acknowledges that the nations of the world, including the United States, “endorsed a global sustainable development action plan, known as Agenda 21” at the ’92 Earth Summit in Rio. Next, the NAS committee recommended that “EPA formally adopt as its sustainability paradigm the ‘Three Pillars’ approach of ‘Social,’ ‘Environment,’ and ‘Economic’ dimensions of sustainability….” Which would make the EPA sustainability paradigm exactly in sync with the three pillars of sustainable development agreed upon at the ’92 Earth Summit. Finally, the NAS proposed a new tool for EPA, the sustainability impact assessment, that would be “used to analyze the probable effects of a particular project or proposal on the social, environmental, and economic pillars of sustainability.”

Moreover, just to keep it real for those of us accustomed to the American way of life, here is what Maurice Strong, Secretary-General of the UN Earth Summit in Rio in 1992, said in his opening speech to the attendees: “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class — involving high meat intake, the use of fossil fuels, electrical appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing — are not sustainable.” (emphasis added)

Based on Strong’s remarks, it doesn’t take much of an imagination to predict just how much downward pressure on our standard of living would be exerted by a sustainability oriented EPA.

It also doesn’t take too much talent at connecting the dots to understand that an EPA based on sustainability, an EPA that wants to pursue wellness, not treat disease, an EPA that wants to use “sustainability impact assessments” to analyze the probable effects of a particular project or proposal on the social, environmental, and economic dimensions of sustainability — that would be an EPA that would aspire to regulate in detail virtually every aspect of our lives, thus completely destroying our freedom and prosperity.

The point of all of the above is that even though the EPA is already guilty of vastly overregulating us, an EPA based on an operational framework of sustainability would be much worse.

There’s no legislation in Congress to stop the EPA from implementing the UN Agenda 21 concept of sustainability, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t start alerting Congress to the impending problem. Realistically, given the makeup of Congress, there’s virtually no hope of getting a bill passed this year to stop EPA implementation of Agenda 21 sustainability.

Nonetheless, on the plus side, the Stop Agenda 21 movement has been gaining momentum over the past year, especially at the local and state level, and Congress could very well be more receptive to anti-Agenda 21 legislation in 2013. So let’s start contacting our Representative and Senators now and urge them to acquaint themselves with the EPA’s preparations to implement the UN’s Agenda 21 and why that would be disastrous for our freedom and prosperity. Then, ask them to take the appropriate legislative action to prevent the EPA from implementing the UN’s Agenda 21 Sustainability paradigm.

In short, we need to start the educational process now to provide a better chance of success in the next Congress.

"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution."John Adams ~ October 2, 1789